Provided when you get to court you can confirm that you have remedied the problem, there is a slim chance that the court would still grant possession. If you are in breach of your mortgage terms and it was a residential property, and he would remedied the breach, the court would almost certainly not grant possession.
The difficulty here is that this is not a residential mortgage but a buy to let mortgage. It seems odd that the lender who charges more money for a buy to let mortgage will take exception to an owner living in the property even down to the extent of taking them to court for repossession. However that’s the view they take.
In many mortgage contracts and in particular if you were in arrears with the mortgage, they will simply appoint LPA receivers and you will in effect lose the property because once LPA receivers are managing it, it is almost impossible to get it back.
There is no guarantee as to what is going to happen in court but to answer your questions:
1 there is a good possibility but no guarantee that if you remedy the breach, they will not get possession. However if you do not remedy the breach they almost certainly will.
2 I’m not certain what you’re saying here because I think this is covered in the question above
3 it’s unlikely the court would allow you six months to remedy this. It would expect you already have them remortgage application in place. There is absolutely no point in going to court if you are still living in the property because the chances are that you would just lose. You need to get out I am afraid because at least then you have remedied the breach.
4 It would make their claim void, that’s a bad choice of words, it means that there is more chance that they would not get possession.
5 What the court will look at is whether the remedy that the lender is asking for is disproportionate to the breach and provided you have remedied the breach in good time and not just the day before you get to court, you increase your chances that the lender will not get possession.